Not specifically. But not caring about what most non-WNists think does not take away any legitimacy of their arguements.

True, but only if they are actual arguments. Adjectives like "disturbing" or "comical" aren't really arguments, as far as I can tell.

So, how they choose to label us is not really relevant to me, and I don't really care about their labels and other ad hominem disparagements.

But if they have actual arguments, I'll address them, just as I'm doing here with you.

Remember, you were the one who brought up what "most non-WNists think." In this post, I'm just talking to a fellow named "Red Star," so I'm interested in your arguments and what you think, but not what other non-WNists think - not at the moment. If you want to go along with the majority of non-WN, then I will respond to you on that basis, not as an individual.

Quote:

Well I'm not going to argue with you on that being a double standard. However I would argue that's not necessarily the norm. I know alot of Liberals (who aren't into radical politics) that agree there's a fair amount of racism directed to whites in certain instances. Though I don't think that's the norm for any race. I've experienced a little institutional racism myself at an academic level. Though I do not think "La Raza" is looked on as a legitimate organization. Regardless, I think you showing a lack of sensitivity towards minority issues hurts your goals, atleast on a political level.

Well, at least you agree that there are double standards.

As for La Raza, you may recall in the past few years where Mexicans have had huge nationwide protests in which they waved Mexican flags and desecrated the U.S. flag. It was a demonstration of racial nationalism. They seem to have quite a bit of support, regardless of whether you view them as a "legitimate" organization or not.

Also, I'm not going to apologize for not going along with these liberal feel good notions of "sensitivity," "self-esteem," "I'm ok you're ok," crap. I think that many of these notions are representative of what has gone seriously wrong in this country. As much lip service they pay to "open dialogue" and "communication," they're usually the first ones to set up barriers to any kind of open communication or frank discussion. They preach "Freedom of Expression," but they do not practice it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Star

I think there's legitimacy to immigration into traditionally white countries, however in my recent visit to China you'd be suprised by how many Westerners work and live there. I think viewing such issues on a purely National level is short sighted.

On the contrary, I think it's just the reverse. It's the internationalists and multiculturalists who are short-sighted in failing to appreciate the long-term consequences of what they're advocating.

Quote:

I guess you hadn't met many of the people who constitute your ranks.

I've met more than you have, and I know them far better than you do. That's how I can say what I say with absolute certainty.

Quote:

Just saw a signature saying "Thank God for Sickle Cell".

That's also a line from a film by Stanley Kubrick called Full Metal Jacket. You may remember it.

So, humor which is Politically Incorrect in one poster's signature is an indication that most White Nationalists support "genocidal wars" and "unwarranted aggression"?

Quote:

Some posters support Israel, not for Israel's sake but because they're killing non-Whites. Is that genocidal war of imperialism?

Such posters are few and far between. WN opinions of Israel can vary, but the one thing that there seems to be a firm consensus on is that the U.S. should stop supporting Israel. There are also some WNists who support Israel because it gives Jews a place to resettle to.

I don't think it could be called "imperialism." The creation of the nation-state of Israel seems to have more religious significance to a lot of people. If U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as "imperialistic," then at least one can discern some sort of practical method to their madness, even if it isn't always readily visible to the general public. In anything the U.S. did for imperialistic reasons, it was generally tied in with some sort of strategic significance or vital resource or commodity. We installed the Shah of Iran because of oil. Our activities in Cuba were related to huge land holdings and crops owned by U.S. corporations which were seized after the communist takeover. In Chile, we engineered a coup because of their huge copper reserves. In Vietnam, it was rubber. It was also strategically located, as location can also be a factor.

But in Israel, our "interests" amount to religious artifacts, shrines, and "holy ground." That seems to be quite a departure from our usual imperialistic proclivities. That's somewhat out of character for us. It's not really the American way. Besides, Israel has no oil, and by alienating the Arabs who do have the oil, it has had a long-term effect on our energy prices and policies, ever since the 1970s and the Arab oil embargo.

Quote:

Seen people celebrate if not show a lack of concern over Darfur or AIDS in Africa.

Few and far between. Hardly "most WNists."

Quote:

It's not hidden, it's right here on this board. I'm not going to look them up and quote them because I don't have to, it's right here. Again, get real.

You're just citing a few isolated posts and acting as if everyone here goes along with it. There are different currents of opinion among White Nationalists. Not everyone thinks alike, and you're only describing a very small percentage of posters here - some of whom may be trolls or what some of us regard as "toxic."

I'm not going to deny that they exist, but I think that you're overstating the issue and overreacting to a few posts.

Quote:

I know alot of pretty enlightened people that'd be considered White Nationalists, and again I wonder why they associate themselves with such a majority.

Because some of us have taken a more objective look at the majority of White Nationalists and have drawn a different conclusion than you have.

There may be a few loose cannons in the lower decks, but the the words of the ship's Captain and his officers carry more weight in determining where the ship will go.

Quote:

You know I wasn't saying that.

Yeah, I know what you were saying. You said that White Nationalists represent the worst attributes of the White race. You keep throwing out these self-righteous judgments. It makes me think I'm having a debate with Geraldo Rivera.

Quote:

The working class is ofcourse my primary concern and they can have any opinion on race they'd like. But you know most WNists do not take a Civil Right approach in regards to race. And their general political persuasions not regarding race are extremely regressive.

That's your opinion.

I would say that our political persuasions are more down-to-earth and focus more on the institutions and traditions which make up the foundation of our culture, our society, and our Western Civilization. We acknowledge, respect, and appreciate those who came before us - their strength, courage, dedication, sacrifice. No society or culture just pops up out of nothing; it's a part of a long, historical chain of knowledge passing from one generation to the next.

The reason for preserving nation and race is to preserve that chain of knowledge. It is our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation. If this threatened or interfered with in some way, then it's understandable that certain defense mechanisms would kick in. This is where some of that "lack of sensitivity" comes into play, as you were talking about earlier. As we see it, they're threatening us, our culture and our people. They're interfering in our schools and hindering society's ability to pass on knowledge to the next generation.

This makes them a serious threat. This is why some of us are inclined to get a bit nasty, okay? Do you understand now?

As for the working classes, what do the communists really care about them? They just view them as cogs in a machine, just as the Tsars viewed them as cattle. But at least the Tsars let them have religion, their heritage, and culture. At least they didn't take that away from them, but the communists did.

So, the average worker still had to work long, hard hours for little pay and a little apartment with not much else. Same as it was under the Tsar, so that part never really changed.

Quote:

That was my point entirely. A WNist does nothing more for his race or the human race as a decent person making his way in the world without concern over aesthetics.

Well, if and when White Nationalism can ever get enough support, I think you'll see that White Nationalists can work absolute wonders for our race. If people would stop getting in our way, we could do quite a lot for our race. We could be of great service to America and to the world as a whole, if only people would let us.

Quote:

Yes, an imaginary collective. A race most on here find degenerate and worthless yet they're out to "save" it. Not push their own agenda.

It's not imaginary. I'm not going to get into this whole "race is a social construct" BS, but if it's your contention that the White race is "imaginary," then it's a product of a collective imagination spanning many generations, all nations, and all political factions.

When we hear phrases like "White Privilege" or "Whites stole the Indians' land," what is this collective term "White" referring to? A product of people's imaginations?

Also, why do you say that most on here believe the White race to be degenerate and worthless?

You see, you’re just not looking at it from a WN point of view. When we look at Whites, we’re looking at multiple generations of Whites, and we want to save those Whites who haven’t even been born yet – even if their parents and grandparents of today are bumbling liberal idiots.

Quote:

I don't think they know what's best for themselves, let alone any sort of collective.

Again, this is just your opinion, and there’s really no basis for it.

At least, I can show that “racist” America was better for our collective than “anti-racist” America. This is something you can not deny. Although I’d love to see you try.

You’re just looking at it from a sob-sister, bleeding-heart liberal point of view, but looking at it from a more objective and pragmatic viewpoint, you can see that I’m right.

Quote:

Destroyed by whom? And how are they destroying it?

Cultural displacement, historical revisionism, loss of heritage/culture, organized crime, terrorism, corruption, consumerism, hedonism, materialism, anti-nationalism, internationalism. They are tearing away the moral, social, and cultural fabric of the nation and turning it into the geopolitical equivalent of a toxic waste dump. That’s what their idea of “Melting Pot” has degenerated into.

Quote:

There you go. Your language implies they're scum because they are Mestizo. As though this type of behavior is the norm.

Well, let’s just say that they represent a higher percentage of mestizos than the percentage of White Nationalists who support “genocidal wars.”

And it’s not just their behavior here in America. They’re even worse in their own countries, where they’re in charge and left to their own devices. Corruption is the order of the day. Drug cartels, kidnapping for profit, etc. I don’t know if you’ve been reading much about this ongoing cartel war going on down there.

Quote:

It's a matter of justice, not race.

But too often, anti-racists stand in the way of justice. As long as they continue to do this, then race will always be a part of the equation.

Quote:

You're advocating a deportation of all Arabs?

Why not? I think we should have deported all Iranians back in 1979-80 when the hostage crisis was taking place.

These countries have had no compunction about throwing out White Americans whenever it suited them, so I see no reason why we should give them any more consideration than they’ve given us.

Bottom line is, these people are of no use to us or to America. We don’t need them. There’s nothing that they can do for us that we can’t do for ourselves, so there’s absolutely no national benefit to have allowed these people to come here in the first place. Likewise, there is no national detriment if we threw them out. America would still go on, and we’d be a lot better off without them.

To allow them to stay only increases our risk and vulnerability to terrorism. That’s actually a national detriment, in and of itself.

We should be practical about these things, not some kind of sentimental sob-sister or bleeding heart. That may seem “insensitive” to you, but you have to look at these things from a wider perspective.

Quote:

Seems like you're mad about the Bill of Rights. One would argue you might hate America.

So, you’re going to lecture me on the Bill of Rights? The trouble is, your argument would be better supported if you cited the Fourteenth Amendment and other such provisions - which were enacted long after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I’ve noticed that you make a lot of basic, elementary mistakes like this, which makes me think that you have an awful lot of gall to speak of White Nationalists or other Rightists as being “uneducated.”

Besides, even under the Fourteenth Amendment, we found occasion to mass deport communists and anarchists during the Palmer Raids. Then, there was Operation Wetback. And of course, who could ever forget the internment of the Japanese during WW2 as enemy aliens? So, none of this is unprecedented in the American experience. One might say it’s been the American way, so those who would oppose such measures should be regarded as the ones who truly hate America. You want to keep around people who would harm and destroy America, so that’s a sign of true hatred towards America.

Quote:

Get real. They are. By fighting economic inequality, community organizing, etc. It does alot more that just racial epitaphs.

Oh, yes, I’ve seen what they’ve done. For most of my life, I’ve seen the measures which have been taken, the social programs, the midnight basketball, “Scared Straight,” and billions in taxpayer dollars on welfare programs, housing, food stamps, free lunch programs, educational programs, drug/alcohol treatment, scholarships, job training, business opportunity grants, and so forth.

On paper and on TV, it all sounds great, but I would say the results have been lackluster, at best. Some of it can be attributed to corruption at the liberal end of the spectrum. Neo-cons have no monopoly on greed or dipping into the till to line their own pockets.

Quote:

As though it's just a conincidence that gangs form in low income neighborhoods as they did for White's before the appearance of a middle class.

Yes, but it should also be mentioned that in those days when Whites formed gangs, there were much stricter methods of crime control and law enforcement. People didn’t think twice about a hanging or capital punishment. No prison reform either. Whites didn’t get a free pass. That may not have stopped crime entirely, but at least it was kept to a more manageable level.

Now, we’re at the point where the courts are overloaded and clogged, and we can’t build prisons fast enough to meet the demand. The government has surveillance cameras out on the streets, and just about every government building and private business has some level of surveillance and/or security measure in place to prevent crime. People have bars on their windows and alarms on their homes and cars. People are being encouraged to have their kids and their pets microchipped so they can be tracked in case they ever get lost.

Whether you think it’s a coincidence or not, these are not indications of a healthy society.

Quote:

If you're in favor of reforming the justice system and penal system, I'm all for that. I'm pretty sick and tired of serious criminals getting slapped on the wrist myself.

I support the death penalty. Do you?

Quote:

However your only complaint is that these minorities might be getting a higher education. Education is the key to preventing crime. Give everyone a right to higher education, both problems solved.

But they’ve already had the right to higher education. They’ve had that all along. They also have scholarships and educational programs available which were set up specifically to help them in this endeavor. It doesn’t seem to be working to solve the problem.

I wouldn’t even agree that education is the key to preventing crime. There are educated people who become criminals, and there are uneducated people who have never committed a crime in their life.

Quote:

Alot of apathy, but they're doing more than WNists still.

What they’re doing has a negative effect.

Quote:

Such a massive generalization of problems you stated but are in no way systematic. As far as human beings doing the occasional horrible thing to one another, well it's an existential invitability.

If human beings are doing it, then human beings can stop it. White Nationalists could stop it, if only people like you would stop standing in the way. There may come a point where we won’t ask you as nicely as we are now.

Quote:

And that's the cause for violence against whites and white's not performing academically or professionally?

I never said anything about Whites not performing academically or professionally. All you asked me for was examples of non-Whites supporting their own race, and that’s what I provided.

It could be that Whites may not be performing well due to this wanton lack of mutual support among Whites. Teachers routinely complain that parents aren’t involved enough in their children’s lives, and this is another clear indication that there is a lack of support among Whites.

Quote:

I don't neccessarily advocate any of those groups. But one would say that the mainstream institions period were traditionally catered towards whites.

50 years ago, perhaps. Not anymore.

Quote:

One without rampant delusions of persecution.

You mean, such as the communists and their delusions of “capitalist oppression”? Or how about the anti-racists and their delusions of “White Privilege” and “racism”? Or how about your view that “war is a crime”? That’s a delusion, too

So, you’re just as delusional as you accuse me of being, so get off your high horse and admit what you are. You’re no better than us, and you certainly have no leg to stand on in passing judgment against us.

Quote:

They? They who?

“They,” as in liberals, anti-racists, and others of that political bent.

Quote:

South African's and a small amount of poltical groups, and many of those supporters were white.

So what if there are White anti-racists? Aren’t you White, too? Most of the problems we face today are from other White people, particularly those who refuse to support White Nationalism. That’s why we consider them to be traitors.

Whites have an absolute moral obligation to support other Whites, and those who refuse are traitors with no morals whatsoever. That’s why we hold the moral high ground over those Whites who refuse to support their race, since they are shirking their most sacred moral obligation on this Earth.

Quote:

Go to the average black person and they know squat about Mandela.

When the opportunity arises, I’ll ask some of our black posters here on Stormfront if they know anything about Mandela. If any blacks reading this wish to chime in and confirm or deny Red Star’s claim that the average black person knows squat about Mandela, please feel free to do so.

Quote:

And what you do if you were Mandela??? If the current black population didn't live in poverty but were in total control of your nation? A nation of ethnic origin?

I would support my race, no different than I’m doing now.

The real question is, what would you do if you were Mandela? If your view is that race is an “imaginary collective” and that anyone who supports this collective is “delusional” or represents the “worst attributes” of their race, then, by your own belief system, what Mandela did was the epitome of pure evil. If there is no race but the human race, then Whites are human, blacks are human. It shouldn’t have mattered to him that Whites were in control of South Africa, since they were humans, too. But it did matter to him. It mattered a great deal.

Since he cared about his own “imaginary collective,” then would you say that Mandela is uneducated? That’s what you said about Whites who care about our “imaginary collective,” so if you don’t say the same about Mandela, then you are a hypocrite.

Quote:

More whites than anyone jumped on the MLK bandwagon.

Yes, they’re traitors. What’s your point?

Quote:

Some sort of idol they can point their finger at and live blissfully unaware of the institutions they support and it's effects in the world.

Non-Whites worship that idol, too.

What institutions are Whites blissfully unaware that they’re supporting? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of White Americans don’t know that we once had this thing called “racism” in our society? Or that they don’t know about imperialism or colonialism or “stealing the Indians’ land”? It’s been in all the papers. I’m sure they must have heard about it by now. I knew about it rather early in life.

Quote:

Just like you point out most whites don't care about specific white issues. How much do you think that many black people who want diamonds on their fingers care about where those diamonds came from? Or many African affairs. It's a human condition. So ideologies that pin one group against the other have failed repeatedly so I give them no credibility.

You speak of ideologies pitting one group against another. Anti-racism is one such ideology.

Quote:

Well racial radicalism often comes from poverty stricken peoples.

It’s not surprising. Poverty can also cause people to go along with socialist ideals as well.

Quote:

Look at black on black crime who's perpetrators are ironically full of racism against non-black. If that's the sort of quasi-support you want, I think you'll be destined to have it.

That wasn’t what I was talking about.

Quote:

Yes. Check some of the Federal Government's records of radical, potentially terrorist groups.

Typically Left Wing radicals are college educated, Right Wing radicals aren't.

That’s a pretty vague citation, with nothing specific for me to check. I’ll have to assume that this is another example of where you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Usually, Left-Wing radicals are in college, but once they get out, most start to move further and further towards the Right (but not necessarily as far Right as we are). That’s what happened to a lot of the 60s era Left-Wing radicals. When they caught that woman who had been an SLA fugitive for over 30 years (I can’t remember her name offhand), she was married to a doctor and living the life of a relatively conservative soccer mom.

In any case, I don’t see any real indication that Left-Wing radicals are any smarter or knowledgeable than Right-Wing radicals. Left-Wingers like to think of themselves as intellectuals, but you’ve never really been as smart as you think you are. You’re only full of self-serving pomposity, but that’s not too impressive, in my opinion.

Quote:

I've seen no truth of how individual crimes are related to trends in culture or race. It's just taking one simple truth and trying to distort it to fit your worldview.

I wasn’t talking about individual crimes.

Quote:

Well that's their country of origins. If you're talking about an "American race" that's hardly white.

For most Americans throughout most of our history, it most certainly was White.

Quote:

As well as the Founding Father's considered slavery part of the American Dream.

No, they didn’t consider slavery to be part of the American Dream. At the time of Independence, it was already an established part of the economy, inherited from our monarchist cousins. They had mixed views on the idea of slavery, on whether it should be continued at all or expanded.

But that aside, the Founding Fathers clearly intended for America to be a White nation. That much is certain. The reason for this was in order to assimilate European nationalities to the American society and culture. It was of vital importance to Americans at the time to prevent any foreign influence, so if anyone wanted to come here to live, they had to renounce their previous loyalties to their European homeland and pledge their loyalty to America. There was nothing mythological about that, it’s part of the Naturalization Acts.

Quote:

So don't give me this mythological, romantic garbage about intentions.

If such things get "extreme" they're not counterproductive and become something else other than sympathy and empathy.

I think you’re wordsmithing here, but whatever. I just don’t think that emotional considerations like sympathy and empathy should cloud our judgment as a nation.

Quote:

You've yet to show me how White's are institutionally discriminated against.

I didn’t say that Whites were “institutionally” discriminated against.

Quote:

You railing against legitimacy of minority instutites stands against countless social outlets that are exclusively white.

Such as?

Quote:

Such groups anyhow are economic oriented, not a real racial agenda. White's take for granted they can be in a racially segregated society. I can live in an all white neighborhood, go to all white schools.

Where? Those options have become fewer and fewer in recent decades. Areas which might have been all-White 15-20 years ago aren’t anymore. Things are changing rather quickly. I don’t think you can truly grasp the full scope of the problem.

Quote:

Alot of minorities don't have that luxury.

Yes, actually, they do.

Quote:

And since you're terrified of being a minority you should empathize. It's youre mentality that justifies something like the UNCF.

Oh? I thought you said that White Nationalists weren’t college educated. How can non-college-educated people have possibly kept negros out of college?

Quote:

Read my posts more carefully before you crique it.

I have read your posts. Perhaps you should try reading mine, too.

Quote:

Western civilization also brought unmatched destruction (mostly to its own people) and the potential for extinction by conflict.

We were able to rebuild and recover from the destruction.

The most destruction took place when some political factions in some Western nations decided to shift their priorities and values towards an agenda which turned out to be decidedly anti-Western and anti-White. We abandoned our Founders’ principles and ideals, and we’ve had weapons of mass destruction hanging over our heads ever since.

Quote:

But that aside it's funny you bring up a caliphate. I think most WNists or most posters here embody the ideals that kept Europe in the Dark Ages.

It was internationalism which kept Europe in the Dark Ages – one singular religious authority ruling over multiple nations. It wasn’t until some enlightened people decided to reject that authority that great things started happening in Europe. People wanted to rule over themselves and their own lives, not be ruled by some foreign monarch or theocratic dictator. That, to me, is the essence of nationalism.

Quote:

They have more in common with militant Islamic fundamentalists than do with the products of secular enlightenment.

I strongly disagree. Muslims are also internationalists.

There’s a fundamental difference between nationalists and internationalists that you don’t seem to grasp.

Quote:

Well then join the Revolution against Capitalism. The Far-Left are the only legitimate political organization fighting Corporate Globalism.

Maybe 25 years ago, I might have been interested. I thought the copper strikers in Arizona really got the shaft.

As for this “Revolution” of yours, I’ve been hearing that song all my life. I am a true child of the 60s, you know. Just had my 45th birthday the other day.

I really did believe in it through much of my youth, up until about the late-1980s.

Quote:

Actually George Bush Sr. signed proposed NAFTA and it was passed by a Republican majority after Clinton was elected.

Clinton was the President when it was actually passed and ratified. Besides, the Democrats still had the majority in the House, and the vote was very close. Clinton had to use the power of the Democratic Party to get the House Democrats who didn’t support NAFTA in line. Only Clinton could have done that, as Bush would not have been able to. Just like it’s said that only Nixon could go to China, likewise, only Clinton could have pushed the rust-belt Democrats into supporting NAFTA.

Quote:

Homophobia, great.

Liberal media sloganism, great.

Quote:

It's a civil right effecting the lives of gays and non-gays alike.

It never affected non-gays, and who cares what affects the lives of gays? They’re the ones choosing that lifestyle, and my general view is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” So, I don’t really care what consenting adults do in private, but it should stay private. It’s certainly no reason to make a mockery of the institutions of family and marriage just for some feel good measure to placate homosexuals.

Quote:

It shouldn't even be an issue. It is because a mass of people like yourself make it an issue and hence get people distracted by real issues.

It was never an issue before a few years ago. The whole idea was entirely contrived and invented just to distract the public.

Quote:

But by all means enjoy your scapegoat.

The “scapegoat,” as you put it, comes down to the liberals who invent these phony issues to distract the public’s attention from more important issues. At best, they focus on the issues affecting only a small percentage of the population, while ignoring the issues which affect the majority of people in this country.

I’m surprised that you, as a leftist and a socialist, can’t see through this malarkey. That’s one thing that I generally would respect about leftists: They usually can see through the BS of the mainstream media, but on issues like this, they seem to be as blind as most everyone else.

Even on that RevLeft site, I couldn’t believe just how fanatical those people were about the “gay marriage” issue. They’re total lemmings, blindly following the media’s agenda.

How does “gay marriage” help improve conditions for working people? How does it help the poor and lower classes? Most of these “gays” are upper class hedonists and wanton materialists who never gave a rat’s behind about working people, so who are you trying to kid? They talk about “civil rights” while wearing designer clothes made in sweatshops.

And you would seriously give consideration and support to this bunch? This illustrates one of the main reasons I became so disgusted with the Left. That, and those corporate feminists who make a big deal over abortion yet still screw the working classes alongside their male counterparts.

I have no use for that kind of hypocrisy.

Quote:

You validate such pettiness by taking issue with it. Again, comical.

Me? I’m not the one who made a Federal case out of it. I don’t really find it comical, though. I find it sad, actually, that society has to waste time and money on the whiney imaginings of blacks.

The fact is, court cases like the one where the blacks sued Denny’s reveals just how out of touch the media and government are with how things are at the “street level.” Fact is, blacks coming in to any business establishment usually create problems for the employees and management, especially in restaurants. I’ve seen countless posts from waitresses who complain that blacks in restaurants are demanding, nasty, and never tip at all. There’s a reality out there that people have to deal with, and the courts and the media just don’t understand these things.

Quote:

Ugh. Total nonsense!

You’re a very opinionated sort.

But that’s okay, because you’re a lot like me in that way. I’m opinionated, too. Makes for a more interesting debate.

Quote:

As though gay marriage and preventing STDs and pregnancy contributes to any of that. I figured you'd take issue to the Bible thumpers fighting such measures. So ridiculous I'm not even going to touch this id nonsense.

I didn’t say that those issues necessarily contribute to these things, but that the public is less aware of them due to all these other distractions being put forth by liberals.

Conservatives are just as bad, too, so they don’t get any free pass from me. I don’t necessarily give that much credence to the Bible thumpers either, but I will give credit where credit is due, at least for the first 150-175 years of America’s existence.

Quote:

Liberals are autonomous. There's a lack of such an agenda because of disunity.

I was speaking of the mainstream, establishment-level liberals who influence the vast majority of airhead liberals who go along with it.

Quote:

I agree.

Maybe it has something to do with condoms, gay marriage, and Mestizos.

Or maybe it has to do with people caring too much about those issues and not about the things that really count.

Quote:

But most fringe movements don't want your support.

That’s their loss.

Quote:

Again, you take very legitimate issues and use them to fit your own ideology.

You’re talking about yourself.

Our ideology is very focused: Do what’s best for the White race and our posterity. I would suggest that the reason we have all these problems and social ills is because we have lost focus as a society.

Quote:

Indeed. I find these traits embodied in many of the posters here. The exceptions prove the rule.

Then perhaps the majority is not so much different than we are.

Quote:

You built nothing.

“Racists” did. You know, the “uneducated” types who represent the “worst attributes” of our race? You said that.

Quote:

Now you're not only a fortune teller but carrying on the legacy of every good thing in Western Civilization (including militantism? ) because you don't like non-Whites.

The historical facts speak for themselves.

Besides, you’re the one tarring us with all these collective “sins,” so if we are to be held accountable for all the transgressions of “racism” in the past, then can’t we offer a defense to that and point out all the accomplishments and virtues of “racism” as well? Don’t you want to be fair?

Quote:

Add deluded to misanthropy.

Opinionated, too. Don’t forget that.

Quote:

But enjoy your scapegoats. It's impossible to argue something with no real objectivity.

Right, so why don’t you try to be more objective?

Quote:

Maybe if you include war as a crime you'd see that Whites have done more harm to White than any foreign group possibly could.

That’s because of Whites who refuse to support their race. They would rather kill other Whites than do something positive for their race and nation.

This is why any White person who refuses to support his race is a traitor. Such a person harms his race more than any non-White ever could.

My God he's responded to every single post in this thread, included ones not directed toward him. This initially interesting thread didn't start off about him but end up BECOMING about him. And all he's done for the most part is repeat himself (with something blaming whites or "right-wingers"--idiotically presuming this a right wing site of course). Won't someone shut this Red Fool up?

Remember, you were the one who brought up what "most non-WNists think." In this post, I'm just talking to a fellow named "Red Star," so I'm interested in your arguments and what you think, but not what other non-WNists think - not at the moment. If you want to go along with the majority of non-WN, then I will respond to you on that basis, not as an individual.

Well I will clarify that I meant most of the posters here. Most white nationalists I've that were sincere and intelligent had nothing but contempt for the "movement". And they were typically National Socialists or Fascists. I don't invest much in this trendy phrase "WNism".

Quote:

Well, at least you agree that there are double standards.

As for La Raza, you may recall in the past few years where Mexicans have had huge nationwide protests in which they waved Mexican flags and desecrated the U.S. flag. It was a demonstration of racial nationalism. They seem to have quite a bit of support, regardless of whether you view them as a "legitimate" organization or not.

Also, I'm not going to apologize for not going along with these liberal feel good notions of "sensitivity," "self-esteem," "I'm ok you're ok," crap. I think that many of these notions are representative of what has gone seriously wrong in this country. As much lip service they pay to "open dialogue" and "communication," they're usually the first ones to set up barriers to any kind of open communication or frank discussion. They preach "Freedom of Expression," but they do not practice it.

1. No one's perfect. You point out Racism directed as Whites as rather horrific or not constructive but use it to justify your own prejudices that I think is equally regressive. I think they will occasionally clinge to this misguided ethnic-national pride as a reaction to the unwillingness of Americans (regardless of race) to accept them into the community. So when most come here under poor conditions and do very decent labor, follow the laws (yeah, yeah illegal immigration breaking law, etc) only to be greeted with cries of deportation is very alienating. And while my first concern is the wages of workers and illegal immigration is detrimental to these wages I'm not short sighted enough to blame the immigrant who chose to come here to prevent starvation or living like an animal. You know you'd do the same. But rather the system that pins two groups against each other while racism plays into that same hand.

2. You must have a chip on your shoulder towards Liberals. I find most Conservatives can really explain, let alone defend their views other than some sort of mass id.

Quote:

On the contrary, I think it's just the reverse. It's the internationalists and multiculturalists who are short-sighted in failing to appreciate the long-term consequences of what they're advocating.

I hear so much about multiculturalism but I haven't found 1 culture to defend, let alone multiply.

Quote:

I've met more than you have, and I know them far better than you do. That's how I can say what I say with absolute certainty.

The fact you said that takes a little from my assesment of legitimacy to your arguements as neither you could prove that about me or I about you. But it's really a small matter anyhow.

Quote:

That's also a line from a film by Stanley Kubrick called Full Metal Jacket. You may remember it.

So, humor which is Politically Incorrect in one poster's signature is an indication that most White Nationalists support "genocidal wars" and "unwarranted aggression"?

It's humorous when it isn't true. It's pretty sincere and you know it. The point is it's an ideology that percieves ones simple existance as a threat to one's own survival. That's unwarranted aggression and the solution of which would be genocide. And it's not like it's never happened. Multiple times. In most cultures. It's a very dangerous mentality.

Quote:

I don't think it could be called "imperialism." The creation of the nation-state of Israel seems to have more religious significance to a lot of people. If U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as "imperialistic," then at least one can discern some sort of practical method to their madness, even if it isn't always readily visible to the general public. In anything the U.S. did for imperialistic reasons, it was generally tied in with some sort of strategic significance or vital resource or commodity. We installed the Shah of Iran because of oil. Our activities in Cuba were related to huge land holdings and crops owned by U.S. corporations which were seized after the communist takeover. In Chile, we engineered a coup because of their huge copper reserves. In Vietnam, it was rubber. It was also strategically located, as location can also be a factor.

But in Israel, our "interests" amount to religious artifacts, shrines, and "holy ground." That seems to be quite a departure from our usual imperialistic proclivities. That's somewhat out of character for us. It's not really the American way. Besides, Israel has no oil, and by alienating the Arabs who do have the oil, it has had a long-term effect on our energy prices and policies, ever since the 1970s and the Arab oil embargo.

You're correct in many respects but when Israel was formed many British Zionists turned Israeli's decreed that Israel would be a state of continuation of colonialism of Great Britain and Europe's past to "tame" the middle east. As the oil continues to flow from the region as well as openly occupational wars to reshape that area of the world politically I find it absolutely true.

Quote:

Few and far between. Hardly "most WNists."

I wait to see this great majority you speak of.

Quote:

You're just citing a few isolated posts and acting as if everyone here goes along with it. There are different currents of opinion among White Nationalists. Not everyone thinks alike, and you're only describing a very small percentage of posters here - some of whom may be trolls or what some of us regard as "toxic."

I'm not going to deny that they exist, but I think that you're overstating the issue and overreacting to a few posts.

Damage control.

Not everyone thinks like that but the majority wouldn't object to such things.

Quote:

Yeah, I know what you were saying. You said that White Nationalists represent the worst attributes of the White race. You keep throwing out these self-righteous judgments. It makes me think I'm having a debate with Geraldo Rivera.

There's never an instance that would require calling another human being Geraldo Rivera.

I would say that our political persuasions are more down-to-earth and focus more on the institutions and traditions which make up the foundation of our culture, our society, and our Western Civilization. We acknowledge, respect, and appreciate those who came before us - their strength, courage, dedication, sacrifice. No society or culture just pops up out of nothing; it's a part of a long, historical chain of knowledge passing from one generation to the next.

The reason for preserving nation and race is to preserve that chain of knowledge. It is our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation. If this threatened or interfered with in some way, then it's understandable that certain defense mechanisms would kick in. This is where some of that "lack of sensitivity" comes into play, as you were talking about earlier. As we see it, they're threatening us, our culture and our people. They're interfering in our schools and hindering society's ability to pass on knowledge to the next generation.

This makes them a serious threat. This is why some of us are inclined to get a bit nasty, okay? Do you understand now?

What sort of knowledge and traditions, both private and public are being denied to you by Federal education (that isn't actually mandatory).

I hear alot of political speak about values, tradition, (around the WNist scene) and in this instance knowledge but they're so vague it means little to me. If these traditions and values (or knowledge) are unique in the sense that they're different from basic human rights then why shouldn't they be under criticism?

I've yet to see how oppurtunity for whites (specifically) is being undermined, how you're not being allowed to marry & reproduce, or any other tools for survival you don't have at your disposal.

Quote:

As for the working classes, what do the communists really care about them? They just view them as cogs in a machine, just as the Tsars viewed them as cattle. But at least the Tsars let them have religion, their heritage, and culture. At least they didn't take that away from them, but the communists did.

So, the average worker still had to work long, hard hours for little pay and a little apartment with not much else. Same as it was under the Tsar, so that part never really changed.

Well that's your opinion and not an accurate one at that.

Quote:

Well, if and when White Nationalism can ever get enough support, I think you'll see that White Nationalists can work absolute wonders for our race. If people would stop getting in our way, we could do quite a lot for our race. We could be of great service to America and to the world as a whole, if only people would let us.

I'm not sold.

Quote:

It's not imaginary. I'm not going to get into this whole "race is a social construct" BS, but if it's your contention that the White race is "imaginary," then it's a product of a collective imagination spanning many generations, all nations, and all political factions.

I'm not saying White people don't have a right to choose to maintain their racial aesthetics, no one is making them choose otherwise. But you idea that someone is a traitor because they marry a non-white (and the punishment for being a traitor is death?) is unneccessary.

It was used as a construct for the appearance of internationalism and colonialism. An excuse to disregard the rights of man. This is not a default position but it can still, and usually is used for this apathy.

Quote:

When we hear phrases like "White Privilege" or "Whites stole the Indians' land," what is this collective term "White" referring to? A product of people's imaginations?

They're referring to systematic genocide of 9 million+ people on the basis of their aesthetics. The aim was more to do with power and greed but the construct for excusing such aggression was racial. Tapping into the xenophobia that allows a human being to become a dehumanized construct.

Quote:

Also, why do you say that most on here believe the White race to be degenerate and worthless?

You see, you’re just not looking at it from a WN point of view. When we look at Whites, we’re looking at multiple generations of Whites, and we want to save those Whites who haven’t even been born yet – even if their parents and grandparents of today are bumbling liberal idiots.

Save them how and from what?

Quote:

Again, this is just your opinion, and there’s really no basis for it.

Absolute basis for it as you construct your arguement on the idea that races are in competition for dominance - essentially over one another. This is not an extension of Civil Rights but of privilege.

Quote:

At least, I can show that “racist” America was better for our collective than “anti-racist” America. This is something you can not deny. Although I’d love to see you try.

You’re just looking at it from a sob-sister, bleeding-heart liberal point of view, but looking at it from a more objective and pragmatic viewpoint, you can see that I’m right.

1. Strawman arguement. Stop argueing with yourself. If you want to argue that racial segregation was better for "our" collective do so but don't pretend that it's contrary to anything I've said or discredits some arguement I didn't make.

Cultural displacement, historical revisionism, loss of heritage/culture, organized crime, terrorism, corruption, consumerism, hedonism, materialism, anti-nationalism, internationalism. They are tearing away the moral, social, and cultural fabric of the nation and turning it into the geopolitical equivalent of a toxic waste dump. That’s what their idea of “Melting Pot” has degenerated into.

Hmm... Point A to Point Z. Connect the dots for me. As though one of those issues is related to the other.

Quote:

Well, let’s just say that they represent a higher percentage of mestizos than the percentage of White Nationalists who support “genocidal wars.”

And it’s not just their behavior here in America. They’re even worse in their own countries, where they’re in charge and left to their own devices. Corruption is the order of the day. Drug cartels, kidnapping for profit, etc. I don’t know if you’ve been reading much about this ongoing cartel war going on down there.

Your critique is reactionary nonsense. You got it stuck in your brain that non-Whites are actively out to exterminate you. When in reality most people do not strive for such pointless things and those that do have the same mindset and anti-social thought processes, regardless of race. It's a fringe minority and I'm thankful for that.

You've also stated enough realism in America's geo-political doings to know that much, much, much of the turmoil in South America is caused by the business interests and corruption America helps funds.

Quote:

But too often, anti-racists stand in the way of justice. As long as they continue to do this, then race will always be a part of the equation.

Over simplfication and again scapegoating. The problems with the American justice system goes far beyond racism directed towards whites. Comical.

Quote:

Why not? I think we should have deported all Iranians back in 1979-80 when the hostage crisis was taking place.

Why?

Quote:

These countries have had no compunction about throwing out White Americans whenever it suited them, so I see no reason why we should give them any more consideration than they’ve given us.

As though White American come there, often in the lowest economic strata, for basic survival. No, they come there (as you pointed out) as occupiers, exploiters, and to cause political mayhem for the profit of a small minority. Essentially creating the conditions that force them to immigrate to the West.

Get some objectivity will you?

Quote:

Bottom line is, these people are of no use to us or to America. We don’t need them. There’s nothing that they can do for us that we can’t do for ourselves, so there’s absolutely no national benefit to have allowed these people to come here in the first place. Likewise, there is no national detriment if we threw them out. America would still go on, and we’d be a lot better off without them.

Well I'd have to disagree since the Arabic-Muslim neurosurgeon who operated on my sister, free of charge, made quite a bit of difference in the lives of my family and her white children.

And stories like this are more frequent than acts of terrorism of any kind. So don't waste my time with your fear mongering or criticizing me for having a bleeding heart while you hide from the boogey man inside your blankey.

Quote:

You want to keep around people who would harm and destroy America, so that’s a sign of true hatred towards America.

And these instances stand as an EMBARASSMENT to America. Thankfully the lessons were learned in the unnecessary fear based response to such measures.

Quote:

Oh, yes, I’ve seen what they’ve done. For most of my life, I’ve seen the measures which have been taken, the social programs, the midnight basketball, “Scared Straight,” and billions in taxpayer dollars on welfare programs, housing, food stamps, free lunch programs, educational programs, drug/alcohol treatment, scholarships, job training, business opportunity grants, and so forth.

Efficiency of such programs can always improve. But they don't do so with just baseless criticism and smug sarcasm. Some of these programs have had a big impact on people's lives. More so than racial epitaphs.

Quote:

Yes, but it should also be mentioned that in those days when Whites formed gangs, there were much stricter methods of crime control and law enforcement. People didn’t think twice about a hanging or capital punishment. No prison reform either. Whites didn’t get a free pass. That may not have stopped crime entirely, but at least it was kept to a more manageable level.

Not really. With murder rates just as high or higher as they are now with with a much smaller population. Not to mention rampant corruption with little Federal oversight.

You're not the first generation to herald some mythological "good old days" fantasy. People have since the beginning of time.

Quote:

Now, we’re at the point where the courts are overloaded and clogged, and we can’t build prisons fast enough to meet the demand.

Whether you think it’s a coincidence or not, these are not indications of a healthy society.

Easily fixed however and I will say that Human Rights organizations care more about the rights of the criminal than the victim or potential victims. Prison reform would be so simple it's maddening to dwell on. I completely agree our justice system is a joke to be kind.

Quote:

I support the death penalty. Do you?

Yes.

Quote:

But they’ve already had the right to higher education. They’ve had that all along. They also have scholarships and educational programs available which were set up specifically to help them in this endeavor. It doesn’t seem to be working to solve the problem.

I wouldn’t even agree that education is the key to preventing crime. There are educated people who become criminals, and there are uneducated people who have never committed a crime in their life.

By and large it is though. Drastically and it can be proven empirically.

Make education free, you will see an effect.

In return replace the college fees with military fees. Make knowledge not a privilege but a right and make destruction cost $.

Quote:

What they’re doing has a negative effect.

Only in your imagination.

Quote:

If human beings are doing it, then human beings can stop it. White Nationalists could stop it, if only people like you would stop standing in the way. There may come a point where we won’t ask you as nicely as we are now.

WNists are bent on perpetuating it. Just as you threatened right there. Hypocritical much?

Quote:

I never said anything about Whites not performing academically or professionally. All you asked me for was examples of non-Whites supporting their own race, and that’s what I provided.

Such institutions were created though because mainstream institutions were predominantly white and held an exclusion attitude like you do. They weren't made to undermine your race.

Quote:

50 years ago, perhaps. Not anymore.

Then why do whites constitute a majority in control and access to these institutions?

Quote:

You mean, such as the communists and their delusions of “capitalist oppression”? Or how about the anti-racists and their delusions of “White Privilege” and “racism”? Or how about your view that “war is a crime”? That’s a delusion, too.

1. Working without getting paid for it (surplus labor). What is that called? Slavery. What is more exploitative than slavery?

2. You really have no right to accuse someone of being deluded about racism when you openly (atleast on the net) advocate such racism and privilege.

3. War is a crime.

Quote:

So, you’re just as delusional as you accuse me of being, so get off your high horse and admit what you are. You’re no better than us, and you certainly have no leg to stand on in passing judgment against us.

Right. I have incredibly high stilts.

Quote:

“They,” as in liberals, anti-racists, and others of that political bent.

In your own mind.

Quote:

Whites have an absolute moral obligation to support other Whites, and those who refuse are traitors with no morals whatsoever. That’s why we hold the moral high ground over those Whites who refuse to support their race, since they are shirking their most sacred moral obligation on this Earth.

Nonsense. You like every other biological organism is motivated by self-interest. Most people understand that cooperation is in their self-interest, not conflict. You see this as threatening to your own worldview and damn the justification of your ethno-centric outlook by this conflict by default. It's an outdated concept as we now have the food, technology, and living space for all people to prosper so long as we don't indulge in the sickenly decedant Western lifestyle that is now prominent.

Collectivism comes in when you realize that altruism ultimately creates a social safety nets and affords the individual more oppurtunity for personal growth. This is why your seperatism talk is indeed regressive.

Quote:

When the opportunity arises, I’ll ask some of our black posters here on Stormfront if they know anything about Mandela. If any blacks reading this wish to chime in and confirm or deny Red Star’s claim that the average black person knows squat about Mandela, please feel free to do so.

You don't know any black people in person? Again this goes to show how easily you can choose a life of segregation.

I'm talking about the average black person who may not own a computer and certainly wouldn't be politically aware.

Quote:

I would support my race, no different than I’m doing now.

The real question is, what would you do if you were Mandela? If your view is that race is an “imaginary collective” and that anyone who supports this collective is “delusional” or represents the “worst attributes” of their race, then, by your own belief system, what Mandela did was the epitome of pure evil. If there is no race but the human race, then Whites are human, blacks are human. It shouldn’t have mattered to him that Whites were in control of South Africa, since they were humans, too. But it did matter to him. It mattered a great deal.

Please, don't waste my time for this. I think you're fairly intelligent personally and perhaps this is just a devil's advocate or arguement proposed just for the sake of discussion. But please, get real.

Whites in South Africa can vote. And have the right to go anywhere black South Africans can (including leaving). So please, don't act like the suppression of a majority of native people is the same thing as allowing them the right to vote.

Quote:

Since he cared about his own “imaginary collective,” then would you say that Mandela is uneducated? That’s what you said about Whites who care about our “imaginary collective,” so if you don’t say the same about Mandela, then you are a hypocrite.

This is just plain stupid. When Whites don't have the right to vote, run for office, or go into public places then I will become a White Nationalist.

Until then don't ever lecture me about objectivity again.

Quote:

Yes, they’re traitors. What’s your point?

The fact you find cooperation, peace, and meritocracy treacherous makes you a traitor in my eyes.

Quote:

What institutions are Whites blissfully unaware that they’re supporting?

A Capitalist system built on war, violence, and cultural conformity of genocide of all peoples, including whites.

Quote:

You speak of ideologies pitting one group against another. Anti-racism is one such ideology.

It can be. Just as easily as racism can be.

Quote:

It’s not surprising. Poverty can also cause people to go along with socialist ideals as well.

Rightfully so.

Quote:

That wasn’t what I was talking about.

No, but that is the inevitability of your comradery if you continue champion such ideas.

Quote:

That’s a pretty vague citation, with nothing specific for me to check. I’ll have to assume that this is another example of where you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Where? Those options have become fewer and fewer in recent decades. Areas which might have been all-White 15-20 years ago aren’t anymore. Things are changing rather quickly. I don’t think you can truly grasp the full scope of the problem.

You're exaggerating. "The sky is falling!"

Quote:

Oh? I thought you said that White Nationalists weren’t college educated. How can non-college-educated people have possibly kept negros out of college?

Didn't say "WNists weren't college educated". Said most "Right Wing Extremists" according to the government.

And non-college educated people can keep people out of college, don't be silly. They're the voting bloc. Your arguement makes no sense.

Quote:

People wanted to rule over themselves and their own lives, not be ruled by some foreign monarch or theocratic dictator. That, to me, is the essence of nationalism.

And was made possible by colonialism and imperialism, essentially internationalism.

Quote:

I strongly disagree. Muslims are also internationalists.

There’s a fundamental difference between nationalists and internationalists that you don’t seem to grasp.

Muslims are human being, autonomous with a whole range of POVs.

That is why most Islamic terrorism is internation between other Muslim nations?

Quote:

As for this “Revolution” of yours, I’ve been hearing that song all my life. I am a true child of the 60s, you know. Just had my 45th birthday the other day.

You should be proud. Child of the 80's. Perfect example of perverted values.

Quote:

It never affected non-gays, and who cares what affects the lives of gays?

Willful ignorance...

It effects custodial rights of children who aren't gay. Effects the inheretance rights of relatives (who aren't gay) and spouses. Effect public spending over potential medical situations. And a whole host of other ways.

The list goes on and on. And injustice against humanity/human rights effects ALL people.

Marriage was made a joke by divorce rates and drive thru weddings. So don't feed me a bunch of hogwash over the "sanctity" of marriage. There's no good arguement against gay marrage except homophobia. For a hated fringe minority you people really can't wait to find a similar group of people to mimick such prejudices.

Quote:

It was never an issue before a few years ago. The whole idea was entirely contrived and invented just to distract the public.

It was an issue. Just a few decades ago electroshock therapy was a sanctioned tool on homosexuals. The fact that there wasn't public attention brought to this HUMAN RIGHTS issue is again an embarassment to this country.

Most of them are white too with adopted white children. It's better for white children to be raised by a cold insitution (that could employ gays and non-whites) than a loving home? Again, the welfare of whites play second your own petty ideological prejudices.

The circus and distraction comes from the clowns who OPPOSE such measurements as it in NO WAY harms them. Irrational FEAR, a PHOBIA.

Quote:

How does “gay marriage” help improve conditions for working people? How does it help the poor and lower classes? Most of these “gays” are upper class hedonists and wanton materialists who never gave a rat’s behind about working people, so who are you trying to kid? They talk about “civil rights” while wearing designer clothes made in sweatshops.

Ugh, cliches do not equate to reality. Many gays are working class first of all and helps our tax dollars first of all is any situation where right of attorney is denied to their spouse and forced upon the state.

Quote:

I have no use for that kind of hypocrisy.

I can understand. You have enough of your own.

Quote:

I don’t necessarily give that much credence to the Bible thumpers either, but I will give credit where credit is due, at least for the first 150-175 years of America’s existence.

Something that occurred in spite of the Bible thumping.

Quote:

Then perhaps the majority is not so much different than we are.

That's the problem.

Quote:

“Racists” did. You know, the “uneducated” types who represent the “worst attributes” of our race? You said that.

Unfounded. And I do believe most of you are ATLEAST 200 years behidn the curb.

Quote:

Besides, you’re the one tarring us with all these collective “sins,” so if we are to be held accountable for all the transgressions of “racism” in the past, then can’t we offer a defense to that and point out all the accomplishments and virtues of “racism” as well? Don’t you want to be fair?

Accomplishment of racism?

Quote:

This is why any White person who refuses to support his race is a traitor. Such a person harms his race more than any non-White ever could.

I will not support the values present here. Despite the lip service paid to higher ideals that are clearly a facade for hatred.

Firstly I was asking why he thought blacks made up such a large part of the crime rate.

No one is argueing most whites aren't able and driven. But I had to laugh very hard if you think 44% of the poverty rate is "ok" when any percentrage isn't necessary.

One in four blacks being below the poverty rates coincides perfectly with the rate of crime in that community.

Well I agree with you that any poverty is uneccesary, with the added criteria that I only care about White poverty. So that means if people are dying in Africa I couldn't care less, but White people in America and Europe should indeed all by able to earn a living wage and live a good life. We have enough resources to do so if we took some money off the fat cats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and redistributed it amongst the poor, which would be the right and moral thing to do.

The black crime rate isn't due to poverty though. It's to do with race.

[quote=US Department of Justice]Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.[quote]

Well I agree with you that any poverty is uneccesary, with the added criteria that I only care about White poverty. So that means if people are dying in Africa I couldn't care less, but White people in America and Europe should indeed all by able to earn a living wage and live a good life. We have enough resources to do so if we took some money off the fat cats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and redistributed it amongst the poor, which would be the right and moral thing to do.

The black crime rate isn't due to poverty though. It's to do with race.

Though I think it's a little shortsighted I am glad you're socially conscious, atleast for your own people. However, I find a lack of concern over other races issues will continue to result in massive 3rd world immigration and like it or not people do not and will not have the stomach to turn them away.

I believe Bill Gates has more wealth than something like 60% of all countries in the world. It's criminal.

I'm not going to be unrealistic about crime and racial statistics, while I've met many white criminals and criminals for the most part are easy to spot and they're disproportionately black. I just refuse to believe that it's entirely due to race. That seems to me a shortcut to thinking and an over simplification and no way a solution.

Though I think it's a little shortsighted I am glad you're socially conscious, atleast for your own people. However, I find a lack of concern over other races issues will continue to result in massive 3rd world immigration and like it or not people do not and will not have the stomach to turn them away.

I believe Bill Gates has more wealth than something like 60% of all countries in the world. It's criminal.

I'm not going to be unrealistic about crime and racial statistics, while I've met many white criminals and criminals for the most part are easy to spot and they're disproportionately black. I just refuse to believe that it's entirely due to race. That seems to me a shortcut to thinking and an over simplification and no way a solution.

It is indeed outrageous that the super rich have the money they do, and I would also extend that to owners of businesses in general making too much money at the expense of the workers.

I don't support complete wealth redistribution where everyone has exactly the same as it would be (in theory) under a communist government. But when the owner of a firm takes a huge profit each year while barely giving his workers enough to survive on, it's high time the system was abolished. The free market capitalist will say that the owners of the firm made that money themselves, but what they fail t consider is that 1) That wealth was largely at the expense of the workers and 2) That wealth will be passed onto their children, who didn't do a damned thing for the money except been fortunate enough to be born into a rich family.

If we took $50 billion from Bill Gates (he'd still have $8 billion left over) and $50 billion from Buffet (he'd have $12 billion left over) we could give $500,000 to 200,000 White workers. Needless to say Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would be just fine with $8 and $12 billion, while the 200,000 White workers would benefit enormously from $500,000. Not only them, but their families would benefit too. If we say the average family is 4 people (mum, dad, 2 kids) that's 800,000 people whos lives would be better off by taking wealth off two people. Capitalism has much to answer for.

I would say crime is linked to both poverty and race, whereas the multiculturalists say race plays no part at all. Obviously you're more likely to get your wallet stolen by a poor black than a black millionaire. But you're more likely to get your wallet stolen by a poor black than a poor white, as the crime figures themselves show.

WNism is about getting our people to have the stomach to turn these third worlders away. Here in Europe at least, our nationalist parties are growing at a fair rate, and hopefully we'll get power before it's too late. I think it's too late for America already, mind you. Even if Americans manned up tommorow and got the border closed, there's too many non-Whites there already, meaning succession is the only option.

The reason I don't care about the third world is that 1) They're not my race but mostly 2) The west has already given Africa loads of funding and there's no sign of improvement. All that happens when they get more money is they have more children, meaning the problem gets even worse.

If we cut off funding for 20 years or so to let the population shrink to a more managable level and to give our own countries time to get back on their feet, maybe then we could help out. By "help out" I mean exchange our capital goods and machinery for their natural resources in trades, not the free handouts they're currently getting. But the west should not, and can not, subsidise 1 billion Negroes while our own countries rapidly go down the tubes.

True, but only if they are actual arguments. Adjectives like "disturbing" or "comical" aren't really arguments, as far as I can tell.

So, how they choose to label us is not really relevant to me, and I don't really care about their labels and other ad hominem disparagements.

But if they have actual arguments, I'll address them, just as I'm doing here with you.

Remember, you were the one who brought up what "most non-WNists think." In this post, I'm just talking to a fellow named "Red Star," so I'm interested in your arguments and what you think, but not what other non-WNists think - not at the moment. If you want to go along with the majority of non-WN, then I will respond to you on that basis, not as an individual.

[/b]

Well, at least you agree that there are double standards.

As for La Raza, you may recall in the past few years where Mexicans have had huge nationwide protests in which they waved Mexican flags and desecrated the U.S. flag. It was a demonstration of racial nationalism. They seem to have quite a bit of support, regardless of whether you view them as a "legitimate" organization or not.

Also, I'm not going to apologize for not going along with these liberal feel good notions of "sensitivity," "self-esteem," "I'm ok you're ok," crap. I think that many of these notions are representative of what has gone seriously wrong in this country. As much lip service they pay to "open dialogue" and "communication," they're usually the first ones to set up barriers to any kind of open communication or frank discussion. They preach "Freedom of Expression," but they do not practice it.

On the contrary, I think it's just the reverse. It's the internationalists and multiculturalists who are short-sighted in failing to appreciate the long-term consequences of what they're advocating.

[/b]

I've met more than you have, and I know them far better than you do. That's how I can say what I say with absolute certainty.

[/b][/color]

That's also a line from a film by Stanley Kubrick called Full Metal Jacket. You may remember it.

So, humor which is Politically Incorrect in one poster's signature is an indication that most White Nationalists support "genocidal wars" and "unwarranted aggression"?

[/b]

Such posters are few and far between. WN opinions of Israel can vary, but the one thing that there seems to be a firm consensus on is that the U.S. should stop supporting Israel. There are also some WNists who support Israel because it gives Jews a place to resettle to.

I don't think it could be called "imperialism." The creation of the nation-state of Israel seems to have more religious significance to a lot of people. If U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as "imperialistic," then at least one can discern some sort of practical method to their madness, even if it isn't always readily visible to the general public. In anything the U.S. did for imperialistic reasons, it was generally tied in with some sort of strategic significance or vital resource or commodity. We installed the Shah of Iran because of oil. Our activities in Cuba were related to huge land holdings and crops owned by U.S. corporations which were seized after the communist takeover. In Chile, we engineered a coup because of their huge copper reserves. In Vietnam, it was rubber. It was also strategically located, as location can also be a factor.

But in Israel, our "interests" amount to religious artifacts, shrines, and "holy ground." That seems to be quite a departure from our usual imperialistic proclivities. That's somewhat out of character for us. It's not really the American way. Besides, Israel has no oil, and by alienating the Arabs who do have the oil, it has had a long-term effect on our energy prices and policies, ever since the 1970s and the Arab oil embargo.

[/b]

Few and far between. Hardly "most WNists."

[/b]

You're just citing a few isolated posts and acting as if everyone here goes along with it. There are different currents of opinion among White Nationalists. Not everyone thinks alike, and you're only describing a very small percentage of posters here - some of whom may be trolls or what some of us regard as "toxic."

I'm not going to deny that they exist, but I think that you're overstating the issue and overreacting to a few posts.

[/b]

Because some of us have taken a more objective look at the majority of White Nationalists and have drawn a different conclusion than you have.

There may be a few loose cannons in the lower decks, but the the words of the ship's Captain and his officers carry more weight in determining where the ship will go.

[/b][/color]

Yeah, I know what you were saying. You said that White Nationalists represent the worst attributes of the White race. You keep throwing out these self-righteous judgments. It makes me think I'm having a debate with Geraldo Rivera.

[/b]

That's your opinion.

I would say that our political persuasions are more down-to-earth and focus more on the institutions and traditions which make up the foundation of our culture, our society, and our Western Civilization. We acknowledge, respect, and appreciate those who came before us - their strength, courage, dedication, sacrifice. No society or culture just pops up out of nothing; it's a part of a long, historical chain of knowledge passing from one generation to the next.

The reason for preserving nation and race is to preserve that chain of knowledge. It is our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation. If this threatened or interfered with in some way, then it's understandable that certain defense mechanisms would kick in. This is where some of that "lack of sensitivity" comes into play, as you were talking about earlier. As we see it, they're threatening us, our culture and our people. They're interfering in our schools and hindering society's ability to pass on knowledge to the next generation.

This makes them a serious threat. This is why some of us are inclined to get a bit nasty, okay? Do you understand now?

As for the working classes, what do the communists really care about them? They just view them as cogs in a machine, just as the Tsars viewed them as cattle. But at least the Tsars let them have religion, their heritage, and culture. At least they didn't take that away from them, but the communists did.

So, the average worker still had to work long, hard hours for little pay and a little apartment with not much else. Same as it was under the Tsar, so that part never really changed.

[/b]

Well, if and when White Nationalism can ever get enough support, I think you'll see that White Nationalists can work absolute wonders for our race. If people would stop getting in our way, we could do quite a lot for our race. We could be of great service to America and to the world as a whole, if only people would let us.

[/b]

It's not imaginary. I'm not going to get into this whole "race is a social construct" BS, but if it's your contention that the White race is "imaginary," then it's a product of a collective imagination spanning many generations, all nations, and all political factions.

When we hear phrases like "White Privilege" or "Whites stole the Indians' land," what is this collective term "White" referring to? A product of people's imaginations?

Also, why do you say that most on here believe the White race to be degenerate and worthless?

You see, you’re just not looking at it from a WN point of view. When we look at Whites, we’re looking at multiple generations of Whites, and we want to save those Whites who haven’t even been born yet – even if their parents and grandparents of today are bumbling liberal idiots.

[/b]

Again, this is just your opinion, and there’s really no basis for it.

At least, I can show that “racist” America was better for our collective than “anti-racist” America. This is something you can not deny. Although I’d love to see you try.

You’re just looking at it from a sob-sister, bleeding-heart liberal point of view, but looking at it from a more objective and pragmatic viewpoint, you can see that I’m right.

[/b]

Cultural displacement, historical revisionism, loss of heritage/culture, organized crime, terrorism, corruption, consumerism, hedonism, materialism, anti-nationalism, internationalism. They are tearing away the moral, social, and cultural fabric of the nation and turning it into the geopolitical equivalent of a toxic waste dump. That’s what their idea of “Melting Pot” has degenerated into.

[/b]

Well, let’s just say that they represent a higher percentage of mestizos than the percentage of White Nationalists who support “genocidal wars.”

And it’s not just their behavior here in America. They’re even worse in their own countries, where they’re in charge and left to their own devices. Corruption is the order of the day. Drug cartels, kidnapping for profit, etc. I don’t know if you’ve been reading much about this ongoing cartel war going on down there.

[/b]

But too often, anti-racists stand in the way of justice. As long as they continue to do this, then race will always be a part of the equation.

[/b]

Why not? I think we should have deported all Iranians back in 1979-80 when the hostage crisis was taking place.

These countries have had no compunction about throwing out White Americans whenever it suited them, so I see no reason why we should give them any more consideration than they’ve given us.

Bottom line is, these people are of no use to us or to America. We don’t need them. There’s nothing that they can do for us that we can’t do for ourselves, so there’s absolutely no national benefit to have allowed these people to come here in the first place. Likewise, there is no national detriment if we threw them out. America would still go on, and we’d be a lot better off without them.

To allow them to stay only increases our risk and vulnerability to terrorism. That’s actually a national detriment, in and of itself.

We should be practical about these things, not some kind of sentimental sob-sister or bleeding heart. That may seem “insensitive” to you, but you have to look at these things from a wider perspective.

[/b]

So, you’re going to lecture me on the Bill of Rights? The trouble is, your argument would be better supported if you cited the Fourteenth Amendment and other such provisions - which were enacted long after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

I’ve noticed that you make a lot of basic, elementary mistakes like this, which makes me think that you have an awful lot of gall to speak of White Nationalists or other Rightists as being “uneducated.”

Besides, even under the Fourteenth Amendment, we found occasion to mass deport communists and anarchists during the Palmer Raids. Then, there was Operation Wetback. And of course, who could ever forget the internment of the Japanese during WW2 as enemy aliens? So, none of this is unprecedented in the American experience. One might say it’s been the American way, so those who would oppose such measures should be regarded as the ones who truly hate America. You want to keep around people who would harm and destroy America, so that’s a sign of true hatred towards America.

[/b][/color]

Oh, yes, I’ve seen what they’ve done. For most of my life, I’ve seen the measures which have been taken, the social programs, the midnight basketball, “Scared Straight,” and billions in taxpayer dollars on welfare programs, housing, food stamps, free lunch programs, educational programs, drug/alcohol treatment, scholarships, job training, business opportunity grants, and so forth.

On paper and on TV, it all sounds great, but I would say the results have been lackluster, at best. Some of it can be attributed to corruption at the liberal end of the spectrum. Neo-cons have no monopoly on greed or dipping into the till to line their own pockets.

[/b]

Yes, but it should also be mentioned that in those days when Whites formed gangs, there were much stricter methods of crime control and law enforcement. People didn’t think twice about a hanging or capital punishment. No prison reform either. Whites didn’t get a free pass. That may not have stopped crime entirely, but at least it was kept to a more manageable level.

Now, we’re at the point where the courts are overloaded and clogged, and we can’t build prisons fast enough to meet the demand. The government has surveillance cameras out on the streets, and just about every government building and private business has some level of surveillance and/or security measure in place to prevent crime. People have bars on their windows and alarms on their homes and cars. People are being encouraged to have their kids and their pets microchipped so they can be tracked in case they ever get lost.

Whether you think it’s a coincidence or not, these are not indications of a healthy society.

[/b]

I support the death penalty. Do you?

[/b]

But they’ve already had the right to higher education. They’ve had that all along. They also have scholarships and educational programs available which were set up specifically to help them in this endeavor. It doesn’t seem to be working to solve the problem.

I wouldn’t even agree that education is the key to preventing crime. There are educated people who become criminals, and there are uneducated people who have never committed a crime in their life.

[/b]

What they’re doing has a negative effect.

[/b]

If human beings are doing it, then human beings can stop it. White Nationalists could stop it, if only people like you would stop standing in the way. There may come a point where we won’t ask you as nicely as we are now.

[/b]

I never said anything about Whites not performing academically or professionally. All you asked me for was examples of non-Whites supporting their own race, and that’s what I provided.

It could be that Whites may not be performing well due to this wanton lack of mutual support among Whites. Teachers routinely complain that parents aren’t involved enough in their children’s lives, and this is another clear indication that there is a lack of support among Whites.

[/b]

50 years ago, perhaps. Not anymore.

[/b]

You mean, such as the communists and their delusions of “capitalist oppression”? Or how about the anti-racists and their delusions of “White Privilege” and “racism”? Or how about your view that “war is a crime”? That’s a delusion, too

So, you’re just as delusional as you accuse me of being, so get off your high horse and admit what you are. You’re no better than us, and you certainly have no leg to stand on in passing judgment against us.

[/b][/color]

“They,” as in liberals, anti-racists, and others of that political bent.

[/b]

So what if there are White anti-racists? Aren’t you White, too? Most of the problems we face today are from other White people, particularly those who refuse to support White Nationalism. That’s why we consider them to be traitors.

Whites have an absolute moral obligation to support other Whites, and those who refuse are traitors with no morals whatsoever. That’s why we hold the moral high ground over those Whites who refuse to support their race, since they are shirking their most sacred moral obligation on this Earth.

[/b]

When the opportunity arises, I’ll ask some of our black posters here on Stormfront if they know anything about Mandela. If any blacks reading this wish to chime in and confirm or deny Red Star’s claim that the average black person knows squat about Mandela, please feel free to do so.

[/b]

I would support my race, no different than I’m doing now.

The real question is, what would you do if you were Mandela? If your view is that race is an “imaginary collective” and that anyone who supports this collective is “delusional” or represents the “worst attributes” of their race, then, by your own belief system, what Mandela did was the epitome of pure evil. If there is no race but the human race, then Whites are human, blacks are human. It shouldn’t have mattered to him that Whites were in control of South Africa, since they were humans, too. But it did matter to him. It mattered a great deal.

Since he cared about his own “imaginary collective,” then would you say that Mandela is uneducated? That’s what you said about Whites who care about our “imaginary collective,” so if you don’t say the same about Mandela, then you are a hypocrite.

[/b][/color]

Yes, they’re traitors. What’s your point?

[/b]

Non-Whites worship that idol, too.

What institutions are Whites blissfully unaware that they’re supporting? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of White Americans don’t know that we once had this thing called “racism” in our society? Or that they don’t know about imperialism or colonialism or “stealing the Indians’ land”? It’s been in all the papers. I’m sure they must have heard about it by now. I knew about it rather early in life.

[/b]

You speak of ideologies pitting one group against another. Anti-racism is one such ideology.

[/b]

It’s not surprising. Poverty can also cause people to go along with socialist ideals as well.

[/b]

That wasn’t what I was talking about.

[/b]

That’s a pretty vague citation, with nothing specific for me to check. I’ll have to assume that this is another example of where you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Usually, Left-Wing radicals are in college, but once they get out, most start to move further and further towards the Right (but not necessarily as far Right as we are). That’s what happened to a lot of the 60s era Left-Wing radicals. When they caught that woman who had been an SLA fugitive for over 30 years (I can’t remember her name offhand), she was married to a doctor and living the life of a relatively conservative soccer mom.

In any case, I don’t see any real indication that Left-Wing radicals are any smarter or knowledgeable than Right-Wing radicals. Left-Wingers like to think of themselves as intellectuals, but you’ve never really been as smart as you think you are. You’re only full of self-serving pomposity, but that’s not too impressive, in my opinion.

[/b]

I wasn’t talking about individual crimes.

[/b]

For most Americans throughout most of our history, it most certainly was White.

[/b][/color]

No, they didn’t consider slavery to be part of the American Dream. At the time of Independence, it was already an established part of the economy, inherited from our monarchist cousins. They had mixed views on the idea of slavery, on whether it should be continued at all or expanded.

But that aside, the Founding Fathers clearly intended for America to be a White nation. That much is certain. The reason for this was in order to assimilate European nationalities to the American society and culture. It was of vital importance to Americans at the time to prevent any foreign influence, so if anyone wanted to come here to live, they had to renounce their previous loyalties to their European homeland and pledge their loyalty to America. There was nothing mythological about that, it’s part of the Naturalization Acts.

I think you’re wordsmithing here, but whatever. I just don’t think that emotional considerations like sympathy and empathy should cloud our judgment as a nation.

[/b][/color]

I didn’t say that Whites were “institutionally” discriminated against.

[/b]

Such as?

[/b]

Where? Those options have become fewer and fewer in recent decades. Areas which might have been all-White 15-20 years ago aren’t anymore. Things are changing rather quickly. I don’t think you can truly grasp the full scope of the problem.

[/b]

Yes, actually, they do.

[/b]

Oh? I thought you said that White Nationalists weren’t college educated. How can non-college-educated people have possibly kept negros out of college?

[/b][/color]

I have read your posts. Perhaps you should try reading mine, too.

[/b]

We were able to rebuild and recover from the destruction.

The most destruction took place when some political factions in some Western nations decided to shift their priorities and values towards an agenda which turned out to be decidedly anti-Western and anti-White. We abandoned our Founders’ principles and ideals, and we’ve had weapons of mass destruction hanging over our heads ever since.

[/b][/color]

It was internationalism which kept Europe in the Dark Ages – one singular religious authority ruling over multiple nations. It wasn’t until some enlightened people decided to reject that authority that great things started happening in Europe. People wanted to rule over themselves and their own lives, not be ruled by some foreign monarch or theocratic dictator. That, to me, is the essence of nationalism.

I strongly disagree. Muslims are also internationalists.

There’s a fundamental difference between nationalists and internationalists that you don’t seem to grasp.

[/b]

Maybe 25 years ago, I might have been interested. I thought the copper strikers in Arizona really got the shaft.

As for this “Revolution” of yours, I’ve been hearing that song all my life. I am a true child of the 60s, you know. Just had my 45th birthday the other day.

I really did believe in it through much of my youth, up until about the late-1980s.

[/b]

Clinton was the President when it was actually passed and ratified. Besides, the Democrats still had the majority in the House, and the vote was very close. Clinton had to use the power of the Democratic Party to get the House Democrats who didn’t support NAFTA in line. Only Clinton could have done that, as Bush would not have been able to. Just like it’s said that only Nixon could go to China, likewise, only Clinton could have pushed the rust-belt Democrats into supporting NAFTA.

[/b][/color]

Liberal media sloganism, great.

[/b]

It never affected non-gays, and who cares what affects the lives of gays? They’re the ones choosing that lifestyle, and my general view is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” So, I don’t really care what consenting adults do in private, but it should stay private. It’s certainly no reason to make a mockery of the institutions of family and marriage just for some feel good measure to placate homosexuals.

[/b]

It was never an issue before a few years ago. The whole idea was entirely contrived and invented just to distract the public.

[/b]

The “scapegoat,” as you put it, comes down to the liberals who invent these phony issues to distract the public’s attention from more important issues. At best, they focus on the issues affecting only a small percentage of the population, while ignoring the issues which affect the majority of people in this country.

I’m surprised that you, as a leftist and a socialist, can’t see through this malarkey. That’s one thing that I generally would respect about leftists: They usually can see through the BS of the mainstream media, but on issues like this, they seem to be as blind as most everyone else.

Even on that RevLeft site, I couldn’t believe just how fanatical those people were about the “gay marriage” issue. They’re total lemmings, blindly following the media’s agenda.

How does “gay marriage” help improve conditions for working people? How does it help the poor and lower classes? Most of these “gays” are upper class hedonists and wanton materialists who never gave a rat’s behind about working people, so who are you trying to kid? They talk about “civil rights” while wearing designer clothes made in sweatshops.

And you would seriously give consideration and support to this bunch? This illustrates one of the main reasons I became so disgusted with the Left. That, and those corporate feminists who make a big deal over abortion yet still screw the working classes alongside their male counterparts.

I have no use for that kind of hypocrisy.

[/b]

Me? I’m not the one who made a Federal case out of it. I don’t really find it comical, though. I find it sad, actually, that society has to waste time and money on the whiney imaginings of blacks.

The fact is, court cases like the one where the blacks sued Denny’s reveals just how out of touch the media and government are with how things are at the “street level.” Fact is, blacks coming in to any business establishment usually create problems for the employees and management, especially in restaurants. I’ve seen countless posts from waitresses who complain that blacks in restaurants are demanding, nasty, and never tip at all. There’s a reality out there that people have to deal with, and the courts and the media just don’t understand these things.

[/b]

You’re a very opinionated sort.

But that’s okay, because you’re a lot like me in that way. I’m opinionated, too. Makes for a more interesting debate.

[/b]

I didn’t say that those issues necessarily contribute to these things, but that the public is less aware of them due to all these other distractions being put forth by liberals.

Conservatives are just as bad, too, so they don’t get any free pass from me. I don’t necessarily give that much credence to the Bible thumpers either, but I will give credit where credit is due, at least for the first 150-175 years of America’s existence.

[/b]

I was speaking of the mainstream, establishment-level liberals who influence the vast majority of airhead liberals who go along with it.

[/b]

Or maybe it has to do with people caring too much about those issues and not about the things that really count.

[/b]

That’s their loss.

[/b]

You’re talking about yourself.

Our ideology is very focused: Do what’s best for the White race and our posterity. I would suggest that the reason we have all these problems and social ills is because we have lost focus as a society.

[/b]

Then perhaps the majority is not so much different than we are.

[/b]

“Racists” did. You know, the “uneducated” types who represent the “worst attributes” of our race? You said that.

[/b]

The historical facts speak for themselves.

Besides, you’re the one tarring us with all these collective “sins,” so if we are to be held accountable for all the transgressions of “racism” in the past, then can’t we offer a defense to that and point out all the accomplishments and virtues of “racism” as well? Don’t you want to be fair?

[/b]

Opinionated, too. Don’t forget that.

[/b]

Right, so why don’t you try to be more objective?

[/b]

That’s because of Whites who refuse to support their race. They would rather kill other Whites than do something positive for their race and nation.

This is why any White person who refuses to support his race is a traitor. Such a person harms his race more than any non-White ever could.

Paraphrase after paraphrase none of you make sense!!!
It's Jew this, Jew that.
Seriously couldn't you get some other thing to bitch about?
How about martians stealing your white farmers cows?
I assume white nationalists are atheists because Jesus was a Jew and Christians worship the Jewish god.
Unless you worship the Norse gods which makes no sense because I'm reading right now out of a Norse Mythology book and it says that Norse gods can change gender at will which probably doesn't go over well with you if you're religious, right?
If you are a Christian, I hope you know that Jesus Christ was a Jew.
I mean really?
What are your arguments? The Protocols of the Elders Zion?
Okay then, that's an compelling argument.
Wikipedia it, and in case Wikipedia is "run by Jews".
Google it, and if Google is "run by Jews".
You really should get off the computer because you would believe anything you read.
So on that note.
Stormfront is run by Commies.
It's funny how WNs think America belongs to them.
I have no doubt that after I post this I am going to be quoted many times and every quote after the person that quoted me first is going to paraphrase what the first guy said.
I wonder if this post will get by your moderator review.

Paraphrase after paraphrase none of you make sense!!!
It's Jew this, Jew that.

In the post of mine which you quoted above, I only mentioned the word "Jew" once.

Quote:

Seriously couldn't you get some other thing to bitch about?

Yes, but just about every problem and social ill facing our nation at present seems to be rooted in the same basic cause.

Quote:

How about martians stealing your white farmers cows?

If such a thing were actually happening, then it would only be because our government is allowing it and/or covering it up. So, the basic complaint would still be the same, no matter what it is.

Our government has the responsibility to secure the nation, safeguard our interests, and protect the people. From all indications, the government is not doing its job. That our government has become derelict in its duties is an indication that there is an inordinate level of foreign influence within the government.

Quote:

I assume white nationalists are atheists because Jesus was a Jew and Christians worship the Jewish god.

Some are atheists. Some are agnostics. Some are Odinists. Some are Christians. Those who are Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God - a belief which Jews have rejected. As a result, the Jews of Israel betrayed their brother and turned him over to foreign occupiers to be executed. It is for this reason that some Christians believe that Jews have been cursed by God and deserve every punishment they get.

For those of us who are agnostics, we merely believe that Jews are a separate ethnic/cultural group which has often had conflicting interests with White Gentiles. We don't believe that there's any spiritual or supernatural for this, but rather, it's ordinary culture clash which happens between nations and peoples all the time. The Jews are not our people, so we have no allegiance to them at all.

Quote:

Unless you worship the Norse gods which makes no sense because I'm reading right now out of a Norse Mythology book and it says that Norse gods can change gender at will which probably doesn't go over well with you if you're religious, right?

I don't know if there are any "gods" or not, but I suppose if they are endowed with supernatural powers, they could likely do whatever they wanted. They could appear in any form they wish - as a burning bush, a goat, a man, a woman, a Jew, or a Gila monster. My impression is that they are beings of energy, not biological matter.

Quote:

If you are a Christian, I hope you know that Jesus Christ was a Jew.
I mean really?

If one is a Christian, then one would believe that Jesus is the Son of God, with God as the Creator of all things and the source of all life. He was rejected by other Jews as a "heretic." Likewise, Christians viewed those who chose to remain as Jews also as "heretics," and treated them accordingly.

Quote:

What are your arguments? The Protocols of the Elders Zion?

No, let's not go into that again.

Quote:

Okay then, that's an compelling argument.
Wikipedia it, and in case Wikipedia is "run by Jews".

Wikipedia is only a marginal source of information, because anybody can edit the articles found therein.

Quote:

Google it, and if Google is "run by Jews".

Google is just a search engine which would direct you to various sites all over the Internet. Some of those sites may or may not be run by Jews. Some might be run by White Nationalists.

Quote:

You really should get off the computer because you would believe anything you read.

So we should watch TV instead?

Quote:

So on that note.
Stormfront is run by Commies.

Cute.

Quote:

It's funny how WNs think America belongs to them.

America belongs to the Americans. Since you're posting from France, America's internal affairs are really none of your concern.

Quote:

I have no doubt that after I post this I am going to be quoted many times and every quote after the person that quoted me first is going to paraphrase what the first guy said.

In the post of mine which you quoted above, I only mentioned the word "Jew" once.

[/b]

Yes, but just about every problem and social ill facing our nation at present seems to be rooted in the same basic cause.

[/b]

If such a thing were actually happening, then it would only be because our government is allowing it and/or covering it up. So, the basic complaint would still be the same, no matter what it is.

Our government has the responsibility to secure the nation, safeguard our interests, and protect the people. From all indications, the government is not doing its job. That our government has become derelict in its duties is an indication that there is an inordinate level of foreign influence within the government.

[/b]

Some are atheists. Some are agnostics. Some are Odinists. Some are Christians. Those who are Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God - a belief which Jews have rejected. As a result, the Jews of Israel betrayed their brother and turned him over to foreign occupiers to be executed. It is for this reason that some Christians believe that Jews have been cursed by God and deserve every punishment they get.

For those of us who are agnostics, we merely believe that Jews are a separate ethnic/cultural group which has often had conflicting interests with White Gentiles. We don't believe that there's any spiritual or supernatural for this, but rather, it's ordinary culture clash which happens between nations and peoples all the time. The Jews are not our people, so we have no allegiance to them at all.

[/b]

I don't know if there are any "gods" or not, but I suppose if they are endowed with supernatural powers, they could likely do whatever they wanted. They could appear in any form they wish - as a burning bush, a goat, a man, a woman, a Jew, or a Gila monster. My impression is that they are beings of energy, not biological matter.

[/b]

If one is a Christian, then one would believe that Jesus is the Son of God, with God as the Creator of all things and the source of all life. He was rejected by other Jews as a "heretic." Likewise, Christians viewed those who chose to remain as Jews also as "heretics," and treated them accordingly.

[/b]

No, let's not go into that again.

[/b]

Wikipedia is only a marginal source of information, because anybody can edit the articles found therein.

[/b]

Google is just a search engine which would direct you to various sites all over the Internet. Some of those sites may or may not be run by Jews. Some might be run by White Nationalists.

[/b]

So we should watch TV instead?

[/b]

Cute.

[/b]

America belongs to the Americans. Since you're posting from France, America's internal affairs are really none of your concern.

[/b]

You posted nearly 48 hours ago. I only just noticed it.

[/b]

Obviously, it did.

So the Gov't covers up cow abductions?
Strange I thought you guys were just ignorant now I realize you're maybe a bit unstable.
What exactly is the root cause for Americas problems?
I don't get how you're logic works.
Jesus was a Jew but the other Jews didn't like him so you worship Jesus but hate Jews because they don't accept Jesus as the "Son of God" you know that Muslim extremists use a similar excuse?
You also say that the Jews have a home of their own and were being occupied by foreign invaders when the Middle East was filled with all sorts of cultures and religions.
Energy can't have sex with a mortal and produce offspring or in the case of Loki transform into a woman and have sex with a horse and produce offspring.
Finally I am from America and no America originally belonged to Native Americans which either sold the land or had it stolen from them.
If you guys from America are such Nationalists why don't you figure out where you're ancestors come over from oh wait you are probably not pure from all you ancestors mixing of different blood.
Also I changed my IP before posting on this site so I wouldn't have crosses burning in my little town.
I am American and live in the Mid-West.

Whites can have those. Just no one's backing them financially. You going to open your checkbook?

I don't believe that Whites can have those; even if someone or even many "someones" backed them financially; the Jews, Liberals, Reds, Antifa and all other anti-Whites would cry "discrimination" against blacks, browns and non-Whites, they would cry "racism" and sue - and win.

This is what initially got me to be a "racist", this forced "tolerance" and "acceptance", the forced integration, and forced association with non-Whites. Also, the fact that we can't have anything that's "Whites Only" without being sued - but the blacks and browns and all the rest can have their own black, brown, or jew only things.

Could I have a bar that does not allow any non-Whites in? Yes or no? Could I refuse to sell my house to someone simply because they are non-White and I don't want them moving into the neighborhood? And can the rest of the neighborhood do the same thing - sell only to other Whites?

Quote:

As far as black colleges go, 40 years ago I'd probably they were fair. Now, not so much.

I say nah, they should have all gotten a free boat ride back to Africa; that would have been fair, just, and sane.